Volume 1

Food safety : fourth report / Agriculture Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Agriculture Committee
Date:
1998
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Food safety : fourth report / Agriculture Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    24/72
    to consumption of residues of pesticides in food. This does not mean that absolutely no risk exists, for it is never possible to be fully certain of the extent to which exposure to pesticides in food may be a contributory factor in long-term chronic illnesses such as cancer. The absence of proven risk does not mean there is an absence of risk. Instances of misuse of pesticides by farmers and growers do occur, and some have been identified by pesticides residues surveillance: for instance, 3 lettuce growers have been successfully prosecuted over the last 3 years for misuse of fungicides in winter lettuce’*°. This does not, however, imply any tangible danger to the public because of the wide safety margins built into pesticides residue limits’*'. 49. The Food Standards Agency White Paper proposes to leave responsibility for the evaluation of food safety aspects of pesticides with the Pesticides Safety Directorate, contrary to Professor Philip James’s advice that it should have been transferred to the FSA. The White Paper states that “The food safety evaluation of pesticides and veterinary medicines is part of an integrated process which is designed not only to protect the consumer but to safeguard the user of the product, neighbours and bystanders, the environment and — for veterinary medicines — the target animal as well’”'’. The Government does however propose a number of mechanisms through which the FSA will be able to act to influence the pesticides evaluation process, including an effective veto on pesticides approvals. Surveillance of residues will remain with the PSD (and, in the case of veterinary medicines, with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate), but the White Paper proposes that the FSA should work closely with the PSD and the VMD in drawing up their surveillance programmes and should have powers to undertake its own surveillance “should it consider it necessary to supplement the PSD/VMD programmes”'**. We consider that public confidence in the safety of food in respect of pesticides and veterinary medicines residues would be enhanced if the surveillance programmes were carried out by the FSA wholly independently of the authorities responsible for product approvals. We further consider that the Agency should actively promote the results of its surveys in the consumer media. Genetically-modified organisms 50. Techniques of genetic modification used in food production are subject to considerable public mistrust, combined with a low level of knowledge about biotechnology (the lowest in Europe, according to a Sainsbury’s poll cited by Mr Riley of Friends of the Earth’). Friends of the Earth stated that “The introduction of genetically modified organisms [GMOs] into the human food chain has been done without adequate public debate concerning the need, ethics and risk involved. It is important that the debate takes place in the light of full information before any further releases or approvals for GMOs are made”’*’. Others vigorously questioned the need for genetically-modified foods, and called, at the very least, for labelling and segregation of all such foods'”®. 51. Advice on approval and labelling requirements of foods containing genetically-modified organisms or derived from GMOs is the responsibility, in the UK, of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), which assesses their safety, and the Food Advisory Committee, which considers labelling requirements for such foods. These functions are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the EU’s Novel Foods Regulation. In essence, the Government’s position on labelling is that “The UK is pressing for all foods which contain genetically-modified ingredients to be clearly labelled so that consumers know what they are buying. In the case of refined products obtained from GM sources, such as oils, which contain no genetic material and are equivalent to existing food products, the UK accepts that labelling isnot required”'’’, In cases where genetically-modified crops are commingled with conventional ag Appendix 90 nt Qq 1001-2 = Cm. 3830, para 4.25 ibid, para 4.29 a Qq 1074-5 as Ev p 345 tt cf. Appendices 3 and 4 ~ TEa p52